/abdl/ - Adult Baby - Diaper Lover★

>>64384 (OP)

Well everybody has their opinion on whether stuff like that is acceptable or not. However, respectfully, if you want to know if it's wrong, take an ethics course or something.

If you think that lying or deceiving people (as your friend did) is always wrong, then that's wrong. However, you could say that in that situation, assuming she merely thought he was slow and that was the end of it, she wasn't really harmed in any way and your friend got what he wanted, so you could argue it's not wrong.

Although, I find that the reason most people object to it is because they hold a blanket belief that involving others in fetishism in any way is wrong, instead of judgement on a case by case basis.

There's also the issue of public messing, which I would say is generally wrong just on the basis of the smell affecting other people. However, if you take some chlorophyll, wear good odor-masking diapers, and mess on the sidewalk on a windy day or something, then you may be able to get away with it but for the most part don't do that.

As for me personally, I don't really care as long as it doesn't get out of hand. Tons of people fuck in public places that are just barely "hidden" because they get off on the thrill, and wouldn't you know it they get discovered sometimes. Sure, it's indecent but it's at least somewhat tolerable. If I caught people doing that in public, the first couple times I'd just tell them off and say they shouldn't do that, but I wouldn't call the police or anything or get really mad. However, if I saw that stuff like everyday like it was just acceptable then it'd be an issue.

Expressing yourself in public: okay

Trying to get strangers to "take care" of you without their consent: not okay

>>64386

I agree. Messing if there's a smell is a bit far, but even if you deal with it quick then fine. As you said, they can't really tell whether they're autistic/incontinent or not. Lots of people have those issues.

To clarify, my friend said he didn't actually mess and he did really have to go, just decided to stay in little mode for comfort and he felt good and it gave him a rush. I can see where he's coming from.

>As for me personally, I don't really care as long as it doesn't get out of hand.

I agree, plus it was covered. In the end, as long as it doesn't get sexual/no touching I don't see the harm if someone wants to humiliate themselves. Some people on reddit are huge haters of public humiliation but I don't really see the big deal tbh.

>>64388

To be fair, he didn't ask to get taken care of. He simply wanted to know where the bathroom was and said it in "little mode". Is that really wrong? She didn't seem to care. He still bought something from her and was nice.

>>64392

moralfags lmao

>>64384 (OP)

>"and possibly is autistic"

>>64390

> He simply wanted to know where the bathroom was and said it in "little mode". Is that really wrong? She didn't seem to care.

Yeah basically that's the kind of delusional thinking people fall into. The actual truth is the guy is very most like desperate and would go to quite literally anyone to get his fill. But yeah whatever, feel free to include random people into your fetishes, as long as they don't even acknowledge it's a fetish, and you pretend you don't get off, and you buy something from them afterwards, it's cool.

I don't know man, sometimes it's preferable to consider reality in a higher scoop than the basic material "what damage was caused" down-to-earth thinking. Unless you have no conscience whatsoever and you're just autistic, then some people might give you a free pass. You still have to buy something though.

All you need is a little empathy to consider yourself in another person's place for a second. When you work as a cashier, you don't want people coming to you with spiked necklaces and ending their sentences with a bark. No harm done, they still buy something from you, but you don't want to deal with that bullshit.

>>64393

"moralfags" is a notion that don't mean shit outside of image boards, where reality is mostly located

>>64390

>To be fair, he didn't ask to get taken care of. He simply wanted to know where the bathroom was and said it in "little mode". Is that really wrong? She didn't seem to care. He still bought something from her and was nice.

This is obviously sexual harassment if someone knew the underlying factors. It's sexual to you, so it's an unwanted sexual advance to those you advance upon.

You don't try to get people to participate with your little side without their consent first. There are rules to adult interactions, you may ignore them do to incompetence but if you ignore them do to libido, society has decided that's a crime. Keep that in mind, right or wrong, it's legally unacceptable.

>>64396

Okay, but the "crime" in question here isn't so much that he made a sexual advance, it's that he deceived her. Making an unwanted sexual advance isn't wrong or illegal the first time that you do it as long as it isn't physical or threatening, that's just called making a move. The only reason this is different is because she didn't know. I think that this is about on the level of telling a girl she dropped something to get a better look at her ass or something. Sure, it's a little devious but I don't think that makes you a bad person or even warrants any punishment as long as you don't go around doing it all the time.

>>64397

Agreed

>>64397

Wait, guys actually do this?

>>64399

A lot more people do than you realize

man fuck that noise, if someone were to come up to me and be like that i'd cringe so damn hard. if you wanna do shit like that just do something relatively harmless like wearing tight/form-fitting pants over your diapers and call it a day

>>64400

I guess it makes sense when I think about it, just never really considered it before.

I like guys checking out my ass though so, no harm for me, I'll pick up whatever you want me to lol

>>64384 (OP)

What the fuck? This is why no one likes LGBT, because people do weird shit like this. Same applies here.

He definitely crossed a line in my book. I try to keep this stuff to myself, not forcibly impose it on others to get off

It's not a question of morality, it's a question of sanity. If you ever reach a point so low that you do something like this you know you're completely gone.

>>64384 (OP)

>crossed the line a bit

>a bit

Gas your friend and then yourself.

>>64406

>>64409

>>64411

>>64413

>>64401

Watch you, you'll have the insane people coming in here calling you moralfags any second : P

>>64406

> no one likes LGBT

What kind of retarded shithole do you live in lol

It's dickish, but fun. I really think the way its presented and executed matters. Though the stakes are much higher in an age where everyone has a smart phone and any weird thing can go viral.

For those that just need to do it, just try and limit how you involve others. What your friend did didn't actively cause any harm, and it's not going to give anyone PTSD. It's dickish and selfish, but really inconsequential. He's not going up to a kindergarten and dropping his shorts to show off his diaper. She probably forgot about it by the end of her shift.

I think public humiliation should be saved for halloween, and the wee twilight hours where people out at 3am will probably get a kick out of exhibitionism and no kids involved.

Halloween all bets off, don't jack off but if someone wants to prance around in a fluffy fairy princess dress and diaper. It's the only day you can get away with it.

>>64394

>All you need is a little empathy to consider yourself in another person's place for a second. When you work as a cashier, you don't want people coming to you with spiked necklaces and ending their sentences with a bark. No harm done, they still buy something from you, but you don't want to deal with that bullshit.

Are you kidding me, as someone who had to work retail for a long time. Those are the stories you tell all your coworkers. If you ever make a big impression or spectacle, you become fodder conversation of the weird or stupid people you see.

>>64420

Agreed 100% with everything.

Also, Halloween is the best for ABDL. Might have to wear a diaper myself if I get the guts lol… anyone ever gone for halloween as a baby?

>>64420

>She probably forgot about it by the end of her shift.

No, you're her weird pervert diaper guy story for the rest of her life when someone brings up weird fetishes.

>Halloween all bets off, don't jack off but if someone wants to prance around in a fluffy fairy princess dress and diaper. It's the only day you can get away with it.

People will not actively call the police on Halloween if you don't bother them. They will realize something is very wrong with you.

Honestly, in my opinion, as long as nobody is physically harmed then it's all good.

I wouldn't do it myself, but fuck the moralfags who say it's wrong.

>>64384 (OP)

sounds pretty borderline Sexual harassment if she was aware. I mean everyone has their line in the sand but pretty sure common sense says.

- Dont babytalk to anyone in public where its not private or rather don't be loud enough for anyone around to hear you

- Dont make people partake that are clearly unaware

- think about how you might appear to people around you and think how others might interpret it

honestly just use common sense, you can obviously go out in public in a diaper and shit yourself (wearing regular clothes and all)but dont go asking the cute girl to change you when its clearly gonna make you look like a creep

The fact that these points are being debated just shows the level of autism in this thread.

The bottom line is your 'friend' lied to someone to get them to participate in their fetish.

Simply put, that's abuse. That is abusing the intrinsic relationship in the moment so he can get off.

There are no "but" or "what if" arguments here; there is only the truth; you can't use what they didn't do to defend or justify what they actually did.

You have to be pretty retarded or very desperate to defend / justify that kind of behaviour - nothing short of someone who was his actual carer could explain his actions to that poor cashier; because he sure as shit sounds like he needs one.

The likelihood of this cashier realising what was going on is pretty high - that 'look' is probably her jerk response knowing *something* is going on; but can't put her thumb on it, so doing the decent Human thing, she assisted your friend.

>>64438

>>64450

I find it amusing that terms like "abuse" and "sexual harassment" have been devalued so much. At this point they have a similar meaning to "creepy". Maybe we need some new words to describe things that are actually harmful instead of just awkward and uncomfortable.

>>64451

I don't think that's it, I just think a lot of people don't engage the gear in their brains that enables critical thinking. The idea that this has to be critical thinking is a scarier notion.

I mean, do you honestly have to think that doing this isn't wrong in any way?

It's not that these words aren't devalued, it's that a lot of people don't grasp the reality of the world around them.

I blame the fluoride in the water. *puts on tin foil hat*

>>64451

I find it amusing this is what "devalued" means according to you. If anything, it raises the bar for what constitutes human decency and normal interactions with people you don't know. And somehow that is a bad thing? I'm sure glad we're past the horrifying days when people had manners or consideration for other people, that was the würst.

Just take a look at the autism some people display on this thread, it's like they've never been outside their basement. Either it's hypocrisy to justify getting your kick out of this, or it's plain tardiness. On this board it's an every day coin flip.

>>64453

>>64452

I mean those terms are devalued in the sense that I've begun to filter them out as background noise. The same thing has happened to words like "epic" and "amazing" which used to be very strong but are now used to describe everyday events. If you expand the definition of a word to include large swathes of people's experiences, the word won't have much impact any more.

In an ideal society nobody would involve others in their fetish, but it's a relatively minor social faux pas. If OP's friend's conduct is "abuse", what do we call the treatment of people in US prisons? Super-mega-ultra-hyper-abuse? The relative responses people have to these things seem grossly disproportionate to say the least.

Also, looking at the world today, I strongly contest the idea that our species has raised its standards of human decency. In my country the poor are worse off than they have been in decades and people are literally starving to death, but at least being creepy is labelled as abuse now.

>>64455

Are you retarded?

You can have different levels of abuse.

>>64456

That was my whole point. When a word gets used for everything from minor annoyances all the way up to torture it doesn't really convey any information.

There was a time when I'd have assumed that "abuse" was something serious - now it's just another buzzword.

>>64458

Point accepted.

>>64460

"fewer rights" you don't what rights mean don't ya? fuck off with your diaper pride shit.

>>64463

Know*

>>64451

Agreed, they sound like feminists that cry rape at everything.

>>64460

>Fuck you and fuck this society. We don't need less public diaper stuff, we need MORE of it. People need to run around in diapers in public, wet, mess as they please, and make everyone aware of our kink. Why should we have fewer rights than everyone else?

This is reddit shit right here. SJW BS acceptance and everyone should like me/ tolerate me.

The world doesn't work that way faggot. Everyone has their nasty side that comes out on these boards but most anon smart enough to know society would break down if we don't keep it anon.

You're a reddit-level idiot accusing people of being redditors

>>64469

Meh, guess this is what happens when you have an ex-puritan society that has not completely freed itself from strict rules about sexuality.

Look around you. People walk around just as they please nearly everywhere. There are no limits anymore. Tattoos, strings, "broken" clothing, huge "underpants" aka hip hop style. Where is (the top of a) diaper with prints on it any different?

If you just take a step back, people running around in diapers in public is not a problem at all. Most/all will wear some pants on top of their underwear. Wetting in public is basically what happens everywhere anyway. Messing in public can be problematic, but as long as nobody smells/notices anything, why do you care?

Making people aware of our kink is a good thing, too. Maybe not by having people notice us wetting and messing and wearing diapers in public (but that was not what was being said. It's just an interpretation). But I sure felt alienated as a younger person until I knew there were others, and I'd have been glad to know that I am not mad. If it had affected me more, it might have caused severe problems during my youth. Additionally, having people know about your kink causes potential relationship candidates to not be put off as much. They've heard about it, so-and-so who is not a serial killer seems to think it's neat, why not try it out in the bedroom if my partner likes it?

You aren't even really affected by all this as long as you choose to not come out to anybody. And why do you want to police what other free people are doing of their own will and without directly hurting others? Your mindset and this policing shit is much more dangerous to society than any idiot pooping their diapers while others notice it.

>>64473

Because people with tats and strings and shitty jeans aren't likely to get their rocks off pretending to be a retard and talking to the cashier about needing to go to the bathroom in obvious diapers.

There's a reason most people save their kinks for the Folsom St. Fair.

>>64474

See? That's why I started my post with the ex-puritan quip.

As if it is important if someone gets their rocks off in the process. Nobody notices that they do. Just like we don't notice when someone wears women's underwear, or when a girl likes to wear really slutty stuff so people stare at her (might be the minority, but this does exist).

I still think it's ultimately a shitty thing to do when you actively involve strangers in your fetish, even if they don't notice, by the way. But I don't try to police others and tell them what to do.

>>64473

Did you read too much stories about diaper fantasies that you lost your common sense of reality? grow up , please. I wouldn't want to see people doing their fetishes in public, It's as if we were uncivilized. now go beat your meat and call it a night.

>>64475

Your thought process troubles me. This person involved another human in his private sexual interests for his own pleasure. People should be free to do so and, no, there shouldn't be policing.

But there ought to be a universal consensus that involving other people in your fetish for your own pleasure, whether they know or not, is a transgression on that innocent party.

>>64478

I could care less if someone wore a dog leash or when seeing a man in women clothes. It is not about what we would like to see in public, though. It's public, nobody controls it, and the rules should be as lax as possible.

I personally don't get anything out of public exposure and I prefer to keep my fetish hidden from others. I do wear diapers under my clothes in public during winter time sometimes, though.

>>64479

>People should be free to do so and, no, there shouldn't be policing.

You misunderstood me. As long as nobody finds out they did it to get their rocks off, it's not a problem, even if they involved other people actively. This is what happened in the story the thread started out with. We can't look into the head of the cashier, but it's unlikely that she was sure about being involved in some kind of sexual weirdness.

However, as people can find out that you involved them actively in your fetish without their consent, I do not like people doing this. If a victim complains, that might constitute sexual harassment.

What I do not want to be policed are the things that don't actively involve strangers. Wearing a diaper under your clothes. Pooping your pants (gross) without anybody getting a whiff. Voicing your opinion and outing yourself/wearing publicly (but in line with current laws, so maybe no direct nudity and no public diaper changes).

>…involving other people in your fetish for your own pleasure, whether they know or not, is a transgression on that innocent party.

The argument is about what 'involving' means. I'm making the point that if they don't know it, or if they are just a passive bystander that hasn't been talked to/made a move at, they aren't involved (enough) to matter. Same as I can't complain when someone with a weird tattoo on his forehead sits next to me on a public bus.

>>64479

SJW spotted lol

who gives a shit

>>64484

>>64485

Somehow I know you two are the people who debate hiring a nurse under the guise of being a retard.

>>64481

Yeah, fine, wear in public. Knock yourself out. Nobody should stop that.

I just think there's a line that's crossed when you go up to the cashier and say "Durr I need to make a poopy" in an obvious diaper. If you just want to wear a diaper around and the cashier is wondering "Is that person in a diaper? then I don't care.

I just think that OP's friend went a step beyond making them wonder and went in with his diaper showing above the waist, said he had to go poopy in some sperg speak, and directly involved this person in his desire to wear an obvious diaper and act like a retard with an unsuspecting member of the public for the thrill of a little self-inflicted humiliation.

>>64486

imagine caring this much about such trivial shit

>Somehow I know you two are the people who debate hiring a nurse under the guise of being a retard.

Acting like you're morally superior. Very cool. Don't act like we all haven't had certain fantasies/thoughts. In the end, there is nothing wrong with wearing a diaper in public and if you think so you're an sjw cuck who probably goes on /r/abdl. Yikes m8

Buying something doesn’t make up for getting her involved in his fetish. All it does is disincentivise the manager or owner from banning him for his degeneracy making that girl know she might have to put up with his shit again. If she got tipped for it that still doesn’t make up for it since she basically whored without her knowing it.

>>64484

>>64487

back to your black pigeon speaks videos, underage

>people actually arguing, sarcastically or otherwise, for exposing your fetish to normies

I really hope you're just funposting

>>64501

imagine thinking this is a big deal at all

i mean yes hiring a nurse/doing anything sexually is wrong obviously but going out and wearing a diaper? who cares bruh. its 2018 lmao its halloween nigga like relax, close your eyes

>>64503

actually if you could stay focused for more than five seconds you'd see it's more about how fucking pathetic you must be to sink that low rather than how traumatized people were

like no one is saying the cashier had to go through therapy to get past this terrible experience, but keep making fun of people that only exist in your mind, that's what you're best at

>>64507

oh sweetie, you're cute. why don't you go back to playing with your blocks. i can only deal with so many tantrums :^)

>>64393

>>64398

>>64400

>>64422

>>64485

>>64488

>>64503

>>64509

what is self-awareness

kudos for writing a sentence without a "lmao" or a "sjw cuck", i can only imagine how difficult that was

>>64511

cringe

You guys should keep your degeneracy in the safety of your homes.

>>64485

>SJW

You're acting more like of an sjw yourself with "muh public diaper pride" shit.

bringing a sexual fetish into general public. of course, wrong.

going to a fetish event or finding that group of perverts that find this shit funny .. arguably not 'public' anymore but contextually, consentual OK.

C'mon. If you have to ask or can't understand the difference then don't do it.

>>64507

>it's more about how fucking pathetic you must be to sink that low rather than how traumatized people were

This is the same kind of bullshit reasoning used by religious/traditionalist authoritarians.

"It's more about how degenerate you must be to sink that low…"

>>64486

I suppose I misunderstood you then. I'm also against people like in the OP. Especially because people shouldn't fake disabilities to get a chance at special treatment. I misunderstood you because of the following:

>The world doesn't work that way faggot. Everyone has their nasty side that comes out on these boards but most anon smart enough to know society would break down if we don't keep it anon.

IMO, keeping it anonymous includes not outing yourself by wearing obvious little clothes or diapers, or by just being open about it. And I think that's too strict of a rule to impose on society.

The public space is for everybody, and nobody should feel entitled to not have to see certain clothing styles or actions if they are not themselves illegal (like people hurting other people). I'm OK with sex being prohibited in public for now because too many people would not dare to go outside anymore if it was allowed from tomorrow onward, but this might change in 10 or 15 years when people have become more accustomed to non-christian morals. Even today I'd say 95% of people might become angry at best (and that's their own fault, really). These society changes require time, of course, and I'm sure parents in the future will be more able to explain weirdness in public to their kids than parents today.

Passive/accidental involvement of others is generally OK. Active involvement should requires some sort of consent. There are examples that show how hard it is to separate these two things, though. If the police want to pat you down and you are wearing padding, that's still OK in my book. I'd rather they not do it, but if they insist, that's their problem. Even if someone were to become aroused by that (last thing that'd happen to me in such a situation, but others may differ and it doesn't matter). If you actively pretend to be incontinent and unable to change your own diaper in a hospital, I think that's mean. The damage might be slim because they might never find out, but it's playing with fire. One could argue that feeling well does improve getting well, but it feels like someone is fishing for good arguments without actually having any.

Taking a retarded person to the bathroom will make you uncomfortable and stressed out, whether or not their retardation is fake (for the record, no, your friend is in no way faking his retardation). Decent people (and/or people at their fucking job with a responsibility to maintain peace in the store) will go out of their way to do uncomfortable things to help those in need. Acquiring this sympathy without actually being in need is exploitation and probably some form of extortion.

Isn't that the kind of thing pathological liars do? Lie for no reason and almost no gain.

There's literally nothing wrong with doing that sort of thing.

Why honor a social contract which everyone else is more than happy to violate when given the opportunity?

>>65532

She simply needs punishment for this transgression, and I would be happy to administer it.

My brain and dick are in perfect harmony.

OP's face